Seneye Cycling False or correct results?

[brandon429]

Hey do you happen to have another ammonia test brand you could run alongside this seneye .04

in other test threads like this one, the non digital kit was still grossly affected by the initial ammonia challenge and seem to have a ~ten day lag time compared to digital

API or Red Sea would be ideal, it’s what most cyclers use

 

[SC017]

Nope.

 

[SC017]

Spoiler: Images:

Ammonia readings are now at 0.002 and I have a pair of Banggai Cardinals and 2 skunk cleaner shrimp in the tank.
Hoping all goes well from here.

 

[brandon429]

Thank you very much for the documentation, this is part of the new coming wave of seneye measurements in the hobby that will drastically alter our collective view on stalls and stall mediation

 

[Garf]

Spoiler: Images:

Ammonia readings are now at 0.002 and I have a pair of Banggai Cardinals and 2 skunk cleaner shrimp in the tank.
Hoping all goes well from here.

Nice steady decline in NH3. Good data.

 

[LRT]

Nice steady decline in NH3. Good data.

@NeonRabbit221B has a really good thread tracking ammonia dosing with seneye. Yes the seneye did show inaccuracies on initial dosing with it.
I think biggest takeaway is tracking trends.
It gives good solid readings of initial ammonia and it tracks that back down to the thousandths, or up linearly at the lowest levels where the other color coded kits read super high with same levels in same tank side by side.
Key here is its been tracked to peak and back down.

 

[brandon429]

agreed and even if it landed in the hundredths / same ready date its the drop that counts.


we know for sure that in swirling tanks full of surface area/all cycling displays, that drop cannot stop and hover just above the safety zone in any tank even if a seneye does say that occurs with minor variances.


heck we've moved in the hobby from always measuring in tenths ppm, and guessing wildly at that, to variances now between hundredths and thousandths ppm. this is acceptable variance and we still have the pertinent details to pull from. agreed.

based on his final readings compared with uploaded seneye logs on cycled reefs, I'd say his system darn sure does not need trimming. you could tell I made a safety parachute lol but didn't need to deploy it.


the greater takeaway here is action happens by day ten in all boosted cycles. even if someone's bac were half dead, or they fed a little too much, or didn't feed at all

ten days of wait is sufficient attachment time for all that surface area, and it'll activate, and with today's digital meters we can see it in pattern and cross apply the completion dates to systems that dont have seneye but have the same swirling surface area in fed / dosed systems.

this thread and its other cousins highlight the linked timeframes all boosted reefs cycle by/meet filter bacteria implantation onto surfaces by


the specific application is unstalling other claimed stall tanks when they meet the exact same arrangement here but lack the testing ability.

I have never, never seen a seneye report stalls past day ten. Its a solid pattern we can relay. API testers will think we're crazy though, be ready.


this thread is also among the ones we cycle where nitrite has zero basis in any start date. The initial dose of ammonia here once converted cannot be anywhere near lethal levels of nitrite, we already know what the max level is, without testing. and whatever degree of nitrite is present simply doesn't matter if we compare this reef to the thousands on file like it. Nitrite presence would matter greatly in other threads in the chemistry forum, we have a running comparison to pull data from with these two opposing approaches logging bioload start dates.

It is added to our unstalled cycle thread, last page as a completed work. In one year's time we can follow up and see how ignoring nitrite helped, or hurt this process.

 

[LRT]

Spoiler: Images:

Ammonia readings are now at 0.002 and I have a pair of Banggai Cardinals and 2 skunk cleaner shrimp in the tank.
Hoping all goes well from here.

Let us know what seneye tracks during first few feedings. You may see a cpl linear blips in thousandths and seneye will most likely track those blips back out same way within first cpl hours.
What that tells me is your tanks processing ammonia levels like you want it to.
I have a sneaky feeling that given your minimal bioload and feedings. Its going to be a mute point either way. Your tank is set up to process the ammonia of your given bioload

 

[LRT]

@NeonRabbit221B has a really good thread tracking ammonia dosing with seneye. Yes the seneye did show inaccuracies on initial dosing with it.
I think biggest takeaway is tracking trends.
It gives good solid readings of initial ammonia and it tracks that back down to the thousandths, or up linearly at the lowest levels where the other color coded kits read super high with same levels in same tank side by side.
Key here is its been tracked to peak and back down.

Just wanted to add to this as I think its important.
Your initial ammonia dose has you covered.
Your bioload. Minimal fish count.
I think its important to recognize responsible feeding of the fish is most likely not going to raise ammonia levels anywhere close to initial ammonia dose that your tank is already processing.

 

[LRT]

First reading that Seneye has reported as being green instead of red.

Hopefully getting first fish on Sunday, will have to see how things pan out.
Still concerned about the ph and the strange readings on ammonia though.

I did not catch this! I would most definetely would have confirmed pH and temp readings. I find it super hard to believe pH is accurate at 7.16.
Having said that I have tracked wierd ph swings using fritz turbo.

 

[brandon429]

that shrimp in the system: heck of a mine canary. a good inclusion to have, it won't permit the major params to be out of spec and live for days on end. Nice bioverification in place

don't dose anything in reaction to pH you can do any degree of water changes you'd like though, at any time/benefit of a cycled tank and what's great about those is if they're in response to any sort of misread, no harm. dosing things in reaction to misreads can for sure cause harm.

we use manual simple work on water export/import for weeks + simple tank feeding and animal observation and then over time shift away to less water changes, more gadgetry.

 

[MnFish1]

First reading that Seneye has reported as being green instead of red.

Hopefully getting first fish on Sunday, will have to see how things pan out.
Still concerned about the ph and the strange readings on ammonia though.

I agree with you - I'm not sure Unless you've tested the pH with another method) - that your tank should have fish added. A pH of 7.06 - 7.1 is unheard of in a saltwater tank. I do not believe - given this - that you should trust ANY of your Seneye readings - without verifying them with something other testing. For example if your pH is really 'that low' - what is your alkalinity? etc etc.

IMHO - there is no point in doing a test - if you're going to ignore the abnormal results saying 'its PROBABLY' an error. it also looks to me - (if I'm reading the graphs correctly - that as the Seneye read a slightly higher ammonia - it also measured a slightly higher pH.

Lastly - and Most importantly (IMHO) - a low pH will result in a lower 'free ammonia' thats measured. SO - if your pH is actually low - when it goes up to 'normal' - the free ammonia measured will be higher as well.

 

[LRT]

I agree with you - I'm not sure Unless you've tested the pH with another method) - that your tank should have fish added. A pH of 7.06 - 7.1 is unheard of in a saltwater tank. I do not believe - given this - that you should trust ANY of your Seneye readings - without verifying them with something other testing. For example if your pH is really 'that low' - what is your alkalinity? etc etc.

IMHO - there is no point in doing a test - if you're going to ignore the abnormal results saying 'its PROBABLY' an error. it also looks to me - (if I'm reading the graphs correctly - that as the Seneye read a slightly higher ammonia - it also measured a slightly higher pH.

Lastly - and Most importantly (IMHO) - a low pH will result in a lower 'free ammonia' thats measured. SO - if your pH is actually low - when it goes up to 'normal' - the free ammonia measured will be higher as well.

Hi MnFish1 I responded to Lasse in other thread but its important to note what ive observed in this thread.
There are instances id ignore seneye pH monitoring and this is why-
expand...Hi Lasse its showing a ph reading of 7.16 and nh3 at .048. I dont disagree with what you have said. But the following is what ive observed.
I've personally seen wierd PH fluctuations using bottle bac. Im not sure how much weight I'd give to it considering I've cross refferenced to other tanks and readings in other tank remained consistent and stayed wonky in bottle bac tank.
I feel like from what I've seen is bottle bac does wierd things to the slide itself especially during first few day of it being put in system with seneye.
Good thing in that thread would be to cross refference another tank in that instance-

I have cross refferenced wierd ph readings in tanks side by side to other tanks. Bottle bac has tendency to do wierd things to slide itself.
Realisticly. The best way to really know what is going on is put seneye in another tank and see if readings are correct. Ive done it. My conclusion is bottle bac interfered with ph readings. It will do the same with temp.

 

[MnFish1]

PS - IMHO - there is a lot of conflicting information here. First I agree with @brandon429 that if you added Ammonia and Fritz - or other bacteria - your tank is probably 'fine'.

Having said that - It remains unclear how a Seneye is helping here - if the whole idea is just to 'ignore the results' and add shrimp and cardinals. This is especially the case since you pH is WAY off (according to the meter)

I also disagree with Brandon - that 'non-digital tests' have a lag time. In fact in the very experiments done by Dr. Reef he quoted - the ammonia dropped from 4 ppm to near 0 in 24 hours. There was no 8 day delay. There was a delay when ammonia was 'overdosed'.

Going forward, IMHO - the MOST important recommendation - IF you do a test and its 'off' - verify it with another method. For example, with the pH - it should have been checked (was your Seneye calibrated incorrectly?, etc etc).

Very happy to see that your shrimp and Cardinals are doing well. However, this could have also been a thread that ended with 'I added a shrimp and 2 cardinals and they were both dead in a day'. Having said all of this - it was not meant to criticise - but hopefully educate. Whether its a digital test, a liquid titration test, etc - there can ALWAYS be errors. Best of luck with your new tank - can you share a couple pictures?

 

[LRT]

PS - IMHO - there is a lot of conflicting information here. First I agree with @brandon429 that if you added Ammonia and Fritz - or other bacteria - your tank is probably 'fine'.

Having said that - It remains unclear how a Seneye is helping here - if the whole idea is just to 'ignore the results' and add shrimp and cardinals. This is especially the case since you pH is WAY off (according to the meter)

I also disagree with Brandon - that 'non-digital tests' have a lag time. In fact in the very experiments done by Dr. Reef he quoted - the ammonia dropped from 4 ppm to near 0 in 24 hours. There was no 8 day delay. There was a delay when ammonia was 'overdosed'.

Going forward, IMHO - the MOST important recommendation - IF you do a test and its 'off' - verify it with another method. For example, with the pH - it should have been checked (was your Seneye calibrated incorrectly?, etc etc).

Very happy to see that your shrimp and Cardinals are doing well. However, this could have also been a thread that ended with 'I added a shrimp and 2 cardinals and they were both dead in a day'. Having said all of this - it was not meant to criticise - but hopefully educate. Whether its a digital test, a liquid titration test, etc - there can ALWAYS be errors. Best of luck with your new tank - can you share a couple pictures?

See my previous post for reasoning of ignoring PH in this instance
I have personally observed only pH readings to be false and inaccurate by cross referencing readings to control tank at same time.
Cross referencing showed only PH to be inaccurate in bottle bac tank. All other params remained consistent when cross refference back to control tank except for pH.

 

[MnFish1]

Hi MnFish1 I responded to Lasse in other thread but its important to note what ive observed in this thread.
There are instances id ignore seneye pH monitoring and this is why-
expand...Hi Lasse its showing a ph reading of 7.16 and nh3 at .048. I dont disagree with what you have said. But the following is what ive observed.
I've personally seen wierd PH fluctuations using bottle bac. Im not sure how much weight I'd give to it considering I've cross refferenced to other tanks and readings in other tank remained consistent and stayed wonky in bottle bac tank.
I feel like from what I've seen is bottle bac does wierd things to the slide itself especially during first few day of it being put in system with seneye.
Good thing in that thread would be to cross refference another tank in that instance-

I have cross refferenced wierd ph readings in tanks side by side to other tanks. Bottle bac has tendency to do wierd things to slide itself.
Realisticly. The best way to really know what is going on is put seneye in another tank and see if readings are correct. Ive done it. My conclusion is bottle bac interfered with ph readings. It will do the same with temp.

Hi - yeah - I have no disagreement with what you're saying. Except - it kind of blows the lid off of using the Seneye for testing 'early cycling' - because if the bacteria does something weird to the slide with the pH - why not the other readings? IDK. My main point was to say (which is human nature) - people tend to look at a number - and assume (because its from a test) - that its 'correct' (if its 'in range' - but ignorable if its out of range.

The reason that I said 'things are probably ok' is that it would be nearly unheard of (except in a disaster) - for a pH of a tank to be that low 'in reality'. BUT - if I had a tank with a pH measurement of 7.06 - 7.16 - I'm not sure I would be considering adding fish - unless I had rechecked (with another method) - the alkalinity, pH and total ammonia.

On the other hand - I am in the camp where I would have happily added the Fritz, Saltwater, on day 0 and cardinals and shrimp on day 1, and ignored the whole process.

 

[brandon429]

For readers:

this thread has predicted motion within ten days like a cycling chart shows for ammonia control


the system has ample surface area


this post matches all other seneye tracked bottle cycles by day ten


there are sensitive animals in place to double check safety limits



this thread is part of a ten year collection of cycles I keep on file

we have been doing this longer than seneye has existed, the flak used to be much worse but the outcome was always the same as we are about to see here. Any claimed system must endure scrutiny, the skeptics have no links using aquarium systems, they paint on paper only, the fear of cycle stall. It doesn’t occur. If this was a Red Sea ammonia cycle reporting .2 nobody would agree it’s ready, the digital meter was our only hope of showing how we keep getting predicted start dates correct for a decade.


watch doubt compile completely in disagreement with all animal behavior and water quality / clarity.


as time goes by the system behaves normally because it’s cycled, and because updated cycling science works to link in compliance dates all these systems that employ high degrees of surface area in the middle of the display. There isn’t one single downside or consequence here, we just avoided them.

 

[LRT]

Hi - yeah - I have no disagreement with what you're saying. Except - it kind of blows the lid off of using the Seneye for testing 'early cycling' - because if the bacteria does something weird to the slide with the pH - why not the other readings? IDK. My main point was to say (which is human nature) - people tend to look at a number - and assume (because its from a test) - that its 'correct' (if its 'in range' - but ignorable if its out of range.

The reason that I said 'things are probably ok' is that it would be nearly unheard of (except in a disaster) - for a pH of a tank to be that low 'in reality'. BUT - if I had a tank with a pH measurement of 7.06 - 7.16 - I'm not sure I would be considering adding fish - unless I had rechecked (with another method) - the alkalinity, pH and total ammonia.

On the other hand - I am in the camp where I would have happily added the Fritz, Saltwater, on day 0 and cardinals and shrimp on day 1, and ignored the whole process.

I've been pretty vocal about my distrust with findings with certain things with seneye. Brandon knows
In this instance though. Having observed ridiculously abnormal pH readings and controlled them back to control tank.
I think its pretty accurate to say op is likely observing same wonky pH reading due bottle bac used.
7.16 is abnormal. Ive seen those abnormalities and put slide right back in control tank and watched them disappear when taken out of bottle bac.
Conclusion is certain bottle bac will especially throw off pH readings and not necessarily anything else.
At least thats what control tank showed

 

[MnFish1]

See my previous post for reasoning of ignoring PH in this instance
I have personally observed only pH readings to be false and inaccurate by cross referencing readings to control tank at same time.
Cross referencing showed only PH to be inaccurate in bottle bac tank. All other params remained consistent when cross refference back to control tank except for pH.

I saw your previous post - I don't disagree with your 'reasoning' - I disagree with your advice. IMHO, you're incorrect to suggest its ok to 'ignore the pH' - becasue - Unlike you, the OP did not cross check or re-check his pH. If he had - and the second test was 'ok' - great no issues. If the Seneye (IDK if it does or doesn't) - has an issue with bottled bacteria, is it in their instructions to 'ignore a low pH' during startup?

IMHO There is no point to using equipment (or any test) - that gives false readings - that we just 'ignore'. Lets say there was a bacterial bloom in a tank - would you just ignore a 'low pH' with a Seneye? Would the Seneye be accurate? I mean IDK. If it is abnormal with bacteria in a bottle, why would it not be inaccurate with another bacterial bloom?

 

[MnFish1]

I've been pretty vocal about my distrust with findings with certain things with seneye. Brandon knows
In this instance though. Having observed ridiculously abnormal pH readings and controlled them back to control tank.
I think its pretty accurate to say op is likely observing same wonky pH reading due bottle bac used.
7.16 is abnormal. Ive seen those abnormalities and put slide right back in control tank and watched them disappear when taken out of bottle bac.
Conclusion is certain bottle bac will especially throw off pH readings and not necessarily anything else.
At least thats what control tank showed

This, IMHO, as a microbiologist - does not make sense. I was under the impression you were suggesting that the bacteria somehow affected the slide itself. I also misunderstood what you did. If the bottled bacteria affected the slide - and a there was really a normal pH in the tank - but the Seneye read 7.1, putting that slide into a tank with normal pH - should not read 'normal' - if bacteria affected the slide - becasue any effects would still be seen.

The ONLY way to test this hypothesis is to check the pH in the 'supposedly low pH' tank - with another method and compare the 2. If anything the results (if I'm understanding them) - suggest the EiTHER the pH in the tank actually was low - OR - there is a problem with the Seneye in that tank.